Another Obama attack on the 2A

Black_And_Blue wrote:Additional cost/labor/energy will be consumed rendering the casings non functional and additional cost/labor/energy will be consumed smelting the brass and redrawing the metal to form what was initially a perfectly good recyclable item..

Not very "green" is it? These flaming libs love talking out of both sides of their hat.

Looks like they may have come to their senses :

Dear Loyal Customers,

Thanks to your voice, DOD has rescinded the order to mutilate all spent cases as of 4:30 pm on 3/17/09. We appreciate the time and effort that you expended, together we all made a difference. We will be posting the email we received from DOD as well as any additional information within the next 12-16 hours. Thanks so much and lets get to work!!! Georgia Arms

http://www.georgia-arms.com/

and another : http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2 ... ersed.html

Today's panic run on ammo accomplished. Your local ammunition dealer thanks you for your business.

tvb wrote:Today's panic run on ammo accomplished. Your local ammunition dealer thanks you for your business.

Good thing I don't have a gun so I won't be sucked into their deceptive games.

Regardless of our disagreements, I've got a gut reaction that the whole thing may not even be true. The timing is fishy; I think we can agree that nothing happens that quickly in a bureaucracy, especially in a military one.

tvb wrote:Regardless of our disagreements, I've got a gut reaction that the whole thing may not even be true. The timing is fishy; I think we can agree that nothing happens that quickly in a bureaucracy, especially in a military one.

You and I certainly are never going to see eye to eye, but when you are right, you're right. I have a hard time believing that DOD would roll over that easily. Either it wasn't true to begin with, or it isn't true now. I'm skeptical enough to think either might be true.

"There's no indication of a hostile government within our borders. There's no indication there will be one in our lifetime."




So a Official of the government suggests on record, while in a government office, that the exec's should committ suicide...... and thats not a wee bit hostile???

after the bullets fly and your drawers are wet and stinky..... you might think different....

the newark riots of the 60's...... lots of drawers wet then...... the LA riots....ditto

fla riots.... the list gets bigger and closer together......

So a Official of the government suggests on record, while in a government office, that the exec's should committ suicide...... and thats not a wee bit hostile???

It wasn't a democrat and I was dismayed when I read that.

As far as the rest of your post, you might be right but until that happens, I'm not out getting myself worked up over the possibility just like I didn't buy duct tape in 2001.

I received this in an email a long time ago and it keeps coming to mind lately. Let me say that I do not know it's origin, I HAVE NOT researched it to prove it's authenticity and It is not my intent to fear monger.
I have not edited the following in any manner.


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.520million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


---------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 mill ion Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated


------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political disidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated .


----------------------------


Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


------------------------------


Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..


------------------------------

Cambodia established gun contr ol in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


-----------------------------


Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.


------------------------------


It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a=2 0program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:


Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent


Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent


Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!


In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still posse ss their guns!


It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!


While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.


There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.


You won't see this data=2 0on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.


Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.


Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!


The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.


With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".


Without Them........We Are "Subjects".




During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they kn ew most Americans were ARMED!!!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & wa s Naval Attaché to the U.S.1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding

& was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

rockwood wrote:During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they kn ew most Americans were ARMED!!!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & wa s Naval Attaché to the U.S.1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding

& was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

I believe the actual quote was "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Also, there is this. "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state." -Heinrich Himmler

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them." -Walter Mondale

Please excuse the verb tense oddities in here, news changed while in mid typing. Cleaned up some of it, not all.

So I guess we're back to subsidizing ammunition, then?

Subsidizing ammunition? That's a joke, right?

It would be a subsidy if the government were paying ammunition manufacturers to keep production lines or entire plants offline. It would be a subsidy if the government were paying or giving the ammo makers tax credits to make a specific type of product for the civilian market that they otherwise would not be.

This is not ending a prior government subsidy. Before this the government sold brass casings into the used casings market and competed with all other sources of these casings for best price. Now they are still selling a product back into a free market, but instead of selling the relatively valuable brass casings they are instead going to shred them and make far less revenue from the sale to the scrap metals market.

Is the government now subsidizing metal foundaries? Only in so far as they are giving up a more lucrative sales option. In that sense they are subsidizing whoever they end up selling the scrap brass to.

If they had some other more profitable option than to sell the used, intact cases, then they could be said to be subsidizing the ammunition market with the existing policy, but they don't have a better option, so no subsidy.

Of course, there is an ironic little end note to all this. After 2-5 years when the new ammo market would have stabilized there is a good chance of two things. First, all else being equal, the price per round would have been down for new manu ammo. Increased economy of scale would result in slightly lower per round costs. Second, with increased new ammo market size, despite the lower per round cost, new ammo makers would have been making more profit than ever (and than they should given the large underserved market for cheaper, remanu ammo).

Hooray! you say? Less expensive ammo for the military! Well, you shouldn't. This policy would still have been a net loss to the tax payer. The per round decrease for new ammo would almost certainly not cover the cost of the lost revenue from the sale of used cases vs scrap metal. That means higher taxes to cover the increased net cost per new round to the military and other agencies. Federal, state, and local governments will have to increase taxes to pay for the change to using new manu ammo, or else cut staffing or reduce their practice regimens (or some mix of the three). And civilians, the tax payers, get hit with all of it, including being forced to buy more higher cost new manu ammo for themselves (or reducing their range time).

Would this have ended the shooting sports. No. But it would have been is a large waste of money, energy, and resources. And for no good reason.

Imagine if drink bottlers could just wash used bottles and reuse them as is without the need to destroy the bottle, transport the waste, reform it, transport the new bottles, and then bottle their drinks. Efficient. Saves costs all down the line right to the consumer, government entity or not. Used bottles are worth much more than the equivalent pile of glass or plastic. Now image the federal government is a massive consumer of bottled beverages.

Would anyone institute a policy mandating that all bottles be reduced to scrap and sold for a fraction of the value of the used bottles?

I'd love to know how this whole idea came about. Supposedly it was considered a "national security" threat to have small arms used casings being sold into the open market. Not sure how that's possible.

SuperBeetle: A "musket loader" is a woman, everybody knows that!

any body have a ten foot pole??

tvb wrote: They simply are not going to subsidize private ammunition makers anymore.

The brass will still be sold but since it's been turned to scrap the government is losing money as the brass is worth much less than the cartridges.

Don_t_Say wrote:SuperBeetle: A "musket loader" is a woman, everybody knows that!

Say what? - so women are not entitled to have a different opinion, no matter how misguided it is. What hypocrisy.

You need to reread the 1st Amendment. Lisa